The Portland daily press., 1887-02-16
a Plain Case.

In the controversy regarding the support
OF Prde's and Stroudwarer bridges there
can be no doubt but that the equities all lie
with Portland. Both of these bridges are
situated number Of miles from Portland
and are not on any great highway of travel
to the city. They are as purely local CON
Germs as the bridges over High and Park
street in Portland. II they were supported
to-day by the towns in which thev are
situated those towns would no more dream
OF trying to shirk them on to some other
town than they do now Of Sinking the bur-
den OF their roads. indeed much better
reasons could be given why Portland should
support some Of their roads than why
it should support these bridges Neither
can these towns plead poverty as a reason
why they should not support their own
bridges, for both Of them are wealthy and
prosperous and the tax rate of each is
smaller than Portlaud's. Wien the merits
OF the case therefore are alone considered no
reason can be adduced why Portland should
support these bridges. Indeed neither of
the towns has ever commended that it was
equitable that this burden should be
put upon Portland. They have rested
their case on altogether different grounds.
Their contention has not been that Port
land should support these bridges because it
was just that she should do So but because
she contracted to support them one hundred
years ago, and the contract is still bind
Ing. That is substantial legal reason if
1t is true. But 1t is not true. What the
DeeriDg people construe as a contract is con-
fessedly lawspaSsed by the Legislature of
Massachusetts, in 1856, before Portland be-
came town, which imposed upon her the
support of these bridges. Now IL the Deer
Ing people are right in their claim then the
Supreme Court of Maine is wrong, for in
1853 in the case of North Yarmouth VS.. Skill
ling the court decided that such laws are not
contracts. This is the language Of the
court:
The acts by which such corporations
Cities and towns are created are not con-
tracts within the meaning of the constitu-
ton. The public good evidently requires
that such corporations should be subject to
LEGISLATIVE control. The Legislature, there
fore, as trustee OF the public interests, is
properly invested with unrestrained power
over the existence of all public corporations.
The act in which this law is found was an
act creating the city of Portland and, there
fore, according to this decision which is in
force today was not contract. Unless, there
fore, the Legislature is to set the claims of
the people Of Deering and Westbrook in
case IN which they are interested parties
up above the opinion of the Supreme Court
OF Maine il must come to the conclusion
that no contract exists today nor ever has
existed.
- Concerning an agreement between the
committee on highways of Portland and the
selectmen of Westbrook in 1852 fixing the
bounds of Stroudwater bridge for the pur-
pose OF maintaining.and repairing the same
not much need be said simply because it has
nothing to do with the case. 1t is not con-
tract to repair this bridge nor a recognition
of the existence Of any contract. The legis-
lature having decreed that Portland should
repair this bridge this was simply an agree
ment as to what the bounds of the bridge
were. 1t has no bearing whatever on the
case.
In nutshell, the situation is this A hun
bred years ago the legislature of Massachu-
sets decreed by law that Portland should
keep Pride's and Stroudwater bridges in re-
pair. At that time there was doubtless good
reasons for the law, but they long since
passed away. Today the law is obviously
unjust, and imposes burden on Portland
that does not fairly belong to her. Portland
simply asks to be relieved of this burden.